From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Nezami is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

This article is part of WikiProject Azeri, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Azeri-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.

Archives		Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents 1 Protected 2 My Suggestion 3 A few minor edits 4 new suggestions 5 Excellent 6 Synopsis of epics -- either too brief or too wordy 7 Lifetime - rv. to compromised version 8 3RR violation by Mardavich 9 Mistake 9.1 Astronomy and other sciences 9.2 on Azerbaijan national academic of sciences 9.3 Persian name 9.4 category of poets

[edit] Protected

Per a request at WP:RfPP, I've protected this article to interupt the current edit war. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, and once you have all reached consensus and believe protection to no longer be necessary, I will unprotect. Note that my protecting the current version is not an edorsement of that version--I just protected what was up when I got here. I also removed the {{copyedit}} tag, as the article's currently protected and should not be edited. AmiDaniel (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Suggestion

It seems there is three/four major disputes and instead of writing long messages, here is my suggestion:

1) The ethnicity of Nizami's father. This is never known for 100% and there is no unanamious consideration. Indeed I certaintly believe by the evidence I brought Nizami was ethnic Iranic and Mr. Baguirov wants to force an interpretation of a certain verse, which is not supported in the old and new English translations and also the symbolism is apparent as I have demonstrated above (see the Rumi, Khaghani, Attar quotes). Since all the major scholars of the West and the latest source have never called Nizami's father a Turk, nothing will be written about the ethnicity of his father. The Kurdish mother is not in dispute. So that is left alone

2) Shirin the Armenian and Christian. This is supported by the most recent and ancient sources. The latest source, Encyclopedia Iranica also calls her Armenian. So does the book of Dr. Talattof. Her Christianity is supported by major references as she was an actual person in Khusraw's court. See the quotes by the Cambridge history of Iran I brought that she is a Christian. So this part is not in dispute from the latest available scholarly sources.

3) .As per the term Persian poet, we have already mentioned a Kurdish mother, so I do not see a problem with it, specially since Persian poet means composer in the Persian language. A large amount of sources have called him a Persian poet. I grant some USSR sources after Stalin said: "Must not be surrendered to Iranian literature" have called him an Azerbaijani poet. But for example Bertels before the USSR era consistently mentioned him as a Persian poet. To resolve this dispute, I can suggest Persian language poet who contributed to Persian literature and culture. The fact is in the end culture and language will determine the ethnicity when someone's background is in dispute and Nizami's heritage is in the Persian language and culture. Neither the modern state of Iran nor Azerbaijan nor even the concept of citizenship existed back then. So calling Nizami Iranian or Azerbaijani from a geographical viewpoint does not make sense. It is like calling Homer or some other figure of ancient Greece as Turk because he was born in what is today known as Turkey. But the concept of Iran as geographical entity and Iranian as an ethnic idea can be proven and existed since the Sassanid times. So the term Azerbaijani is purely ethnic term here and refers to Oghuz Turkic speakers. The term Iranian would also be ethnic term meaning an ethnic Iranic. The term Azerbaijan poet is not correct: a)Nizami did not write in Azerbaijani Turkish b) He was at least half Iranic and I believe 100% Iranian (and this matter won't be settled), so by default of his half Kurdishness, he could not be simply called Turkic or even Azerbaijani.

4) There are harsh quotes about Turks(nomad, low descent,taraajgar, deli por ze kin, bi fitnah turki ze maadar nazaad...) and the quote from Lili O Majnoon does not exist in any reliable Persian to English translation done by Dr. Rudolf Gelpke has it correct. I demonstrate that a certain verse does not exist and Mr. Baguirov could not bring the original Persian either. English to English translations have a lot of extrapolations.. G.H. Darab also never translated Lili o Majnoon in 1945 and this was a forgery madeup. I suggest we get rid of the quote part, specially since people are interested to put ethnic materials where some of them really needs context. Else then one can bring the harsh quotes about Turks and then another user would have to try to explain intrepretations from his viewpoint and we get no where. I have already emailed Paul Smith (who does not know Persian) and he will most likely change that part that has no supporting verse.

I would like to hear hopefully in a polite tone from anyone that opposes these suggestion. Note I am being lenient because I believe Nezami Ganjavi is the 30,000 couplets he left behind as he himself said: He is alive through his poetry. Even one article in Britannica mentions him as a Persian poet, but we can keep the outline of the main Britannica article.

5) Let us start new in tone and discussion, we won't change our views on Nizami's father ethnicity and indeed I have some new materials which I can share more in, but it is not necessary here.

6) The page should be locked from future edits until all disputes are resolved.

--Ali doostzadeh 21:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There is also another major dispute: his birthplace. I suggest to mention both versions (Qum, mentioned in the Britannica, and Ganja, mentioned in some other sources) with the explanation that this subject is disputed. As for his ethnicity: Nizami being "a Turk" is one of the most illogical claims ever. There is no known Turkish work of Nizami, although there WERE Turkish poets during his lifetime, for example the Turkish poet Yunus Emre. So, if Nizami were a Turk, he would have written in Turkish ... at least to some extent. But there seems to be a total lack to Turkish poetry, which deffinitly supports the claim of an Iranian, most likely Persian heritage. Tajik 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and I agree with mentioning Qum as well as Ganja. And it is true, there is no Turkish verse from Nizami(and even the Turkish poet Alisher Navai admits it and I will bring the exact quote from Alisher Navai which also suggests Nizami was Iranian from a reliable translation) despite what Stalin claimed. Although I mentioned as well that although Qom is not in some of the older manuscripts, nevertheless many manuscripts and biographers of Islamic time have referred to it. My suggestion is though that we also use the material from encyclopedia Britannica. Nizami was not a Turk since he was at least half Kurdish and the other half I believe was Iranic as well (although some will always disagree and they will never accept it). As per new materials about him being Iranic or Turkic, I think we should discuss it somewhere else. I have put something new about Spand and Spandiyar and Nezami's mother in my latest message above. --Ali doostzadeh 22:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Just one comment. You can’t refer to older edition of Britannica, as Wiki rules discourage from using older Britannica. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Older editions such as the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica often have fuller articles than current editions on some subjects, though there is always the danger that the information is outdated. So you can refer only to current edition of Britannica, which says nothing about Qum version. Grandmaster 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say I can't refer to the older one, just because the newer one is more succient. But for now, okay fine so are we going to all the way with the latest edition of Brittanica. The same Britannica in one article considers Nizami amongst Persian poets. Since I strongly believe Nizami was Iranian, but still my belief in his univerality is much stonger, I am open to suggestions myself. I hope all the history talks is over(and some things will never be agreed upon) and so we can come to agreement and I hope everyone starts with new politeness. Here is a quote by Britannica about Azeris: "are of mixed ethnic origin, the oldest element deriving from the indigenous population of eastern Transcaucasia and possibly from the Medians of northern Persia. This population was Persianized during the period of the Sasanian dynasty of Iran (3rd–7th century AD), but, after the region's conquest by the Seljuq Turks in the 11th century, the inhabitants were Turkicized, and further Turkicization of the population occurred in the ensuing centuries. So if Azarbaijanis consider themseves descendants of old Iranic people like Medes/Persians than I have no problem with calling Nizami a poet shared by Iranians and Azerbaijanis. But if Azerbaijani is strictly defined as Oghuz Turks, like the pan-turkists do, then I am very opposed since the cultural heritage of Nizami is Persian and he was no seljuqid/oghuz turk. As per ethnicity it is a Kurdish mother and although the Qom theory can not be ruled, I have not seen anything definite about the ethnicity of his father and there will never be anything definite. So we can mention his names. These compromises are due to the fact that I feel we were the same country 180 years and although the USSR did major damage to the culture of the area, I firmly believe in sharing the common heritage. As per Shirin, there is direct evidence from history books that she was a real person and a Christian. If her Armenianness is a major issue, let me know, but what is important is that scholarly texts have mentioned her as an Armenian and I have not seen one scholarly text from a major scholar of Persian literature to claim otherwise. Lets see what other people think.--Ali doostzadeh 06:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the all differences can be resolved. In fact, Azerbaijani people don’t deny their Iranian and Caucasian heritage, but Oghuz culture is also part of it, but only one of the parts (language), as Britannica mentions. Grandmaster 06:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In any compromise as you know all sides have to know that they can't get something 100%. So let us see what other people think. --Ali doostzadeh 06:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Eventually we should reach a middle ground. Grandmaster 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few minor edits

The article writes the name Nizami as Nezami the correct one is Nizami, but we should put up which one is more populair. Also the article avoids Nezami his lastname (penname) which is Ganjavi, this should be changed and also be added into the title. And after the born date it should be added were he was born which is Ganja in Arran nowadays Azerbaijan. You guys added a citation to the location of his birth which confirms Ganja but its still written Qum in Persia in the article? [1]. Also the article says about the contribution to Persian literature and culture but it should also add Azeri literature and culture along that. For simple reasons because he was born and lived in Azerbaijan and made a massive influence there and in Azerbaijan people are very proud on Nizami, so it has influenced it in the Azerbaijan regions aswell, I dont know about Iran though but I think Azerbaijani literture and culture should be added along that sentence. Baku87 08:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Both Nizami and Nezami are correct. For example Afghani Persian would probably say Nizami and Tehrani Persian Nezami. I am not sure if Ganjavi is his pen-name. It is just a title added in later because of the city he lived in. Much like Khaghani-e-Shervaani or Hafez-e-Shirazi or Ferdowsi-e-Tusi... At that time, people usually had one name and not a first name and last name. About Azerbaijani literature that would be someone like Fuzuli who wrote in Azerbaijani Turkish. He are also contributed to Persian literature as well. Nizami solely wrote in Persian and hence Persian literature. Besides the stories of Nizami did not really have to do with Oghuz culture, although Azerbaijani culture as pointed out is a mixture of Iranian and Turkic culture. Probably the cultural aspect is more Iranian but the language is definitely Turkic and so Nizami did not write in Turkic. Also since the literature is part of culture, it is Persian culture as well. We already said we will add his heritage is shared by Iran (or as Encyclopedia Britannica put it Persian speaking lands) and Azerbaijan. I will be back in 12 hours or so. --Ali doostzadeh 18:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

But which name is more populair according to google, Nizami or Nezami? We should make the most populair one as the title. For all I know he is known as Nizami Ganjavi. And what do you think about his birthplace? There are 2 different sources who say the opposite but only 1 is actually used in the article. Another thing is literature doesnt only have to do with language, for example we have loads of people in Azerbaijan who write in Russian and this is still considered to be a contribution to Azerbaijani literature, so why make a exception here? Baku87 22:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Both are correct, just like 'Ali and Ali are both correct. The good thing about Wikipedia is that it will redirect. Since the name is Arabic, and Arabs pronounce it as Nizami, I guess that is fine. That is how it is pronounced in some Persian dialects, Kurdish and Afghani Persian. At the same time, a similar page with Nezami can be redirected. For example some words are pronounced differently in Texan and New Yorkian English. As per people in Azerbaijan contributing to Russian literature, they are contributing to Russian language literature, so it is not Azerbaijani literature. Also the current Azerbaijani ethnicity is a synthesis between Caucasian, Iranian and Oghuz Turks if we take the Britannica definition, which I have not seen any disagreement. Such an interesting ethnicity did not exist during Nizami's time and plus we know he was at least half Kurdish and I am convinced the other half was Iranic although we will leave his fathers ethnicity out, since there is no absolute proof despite everyone thinking their theory is 100%. Also we are talking about literature and the language it is written in. If Iranians contribute to English literature, then I do not consider it a contribution to Persian or Iranian literature. Azerbaijani Turkish is a language and contribution directly to Azerbaijani literature by most definition simply means Nizami wrote in Azerbaijani Turkich, which he did not. So the term Persian literature is strictly a linguistic term and that is what Nizami contributed to. --Ali doostzadeh 23:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Then according to you since he has also Kurdish blood we should add Kurdish literature and culture aswell Baku87 17:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Actually you are misreading. Blood has nothing to do with the literature Nizami contributed to. For example if I learn German and then write some German poems, then I am not contributing to Iranian literature but I am contributing to German literature. The definition is not according to me, but it is the logical and historical definition. So if you write some Arabic poems, you are contributing to Arab literature. That simple. As per ethnicity we know for sure he was half Kurdish and the other half although I believe is Iranian, it will be blank. Also here is a short poem by a 13th century author and historian Hamdollah Mostowfi: چند شهر است اندر ایران مرتفع تر از همه Some cities of Iran are better than the rest, بهتر و سازنده تر از خوشی آب و هوا these have pleasant and compromising weather, گنجه پر گنج در اران صفاهان در عراق The wealthy Ganjeh of Arran, and Isfahan as well, So I can make justifications for calling him Iranian.. but I won't and I am waiting for replies from the other side, so that a compromise is reached.

-Ali doostzadeh 17:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point, this is not a blood issue, do we have any records of him having written in Turkic? Is there any record that he had any ethnic encestry? Both of those are all that matters. Also I didn't knew that Shirin being Armenian was also debated. BTW, great job in documenting, but many of the things you brought here weren't really necessary. Regards. Fad (ix) 01:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur, I was quite impressed with Ali doostzadeh's hard work and dedication.--Eupator 01:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your comments. There is no Turkish work from the region during Nizami's time despite some invalid claims made throughout the discussion. There is not a verse of Turkish from Nizami and unfortunately Stalin claimed that Nizami had some Turkish work and such misconception started. Azerbaijani Turkish literature started developing during the Ilkhanid era(several poems and small works which are less than 10) and then during the Safavids it picks up. As per ethnic ancestery, his mother is a Kurd. As per his father, there is nothing definite and although nothing could be ruled out for, I firmly believe he was Iranian by my arguments and the other sides believes he was Turk by their argument. Either way the fact that he was 50% Iranian by ancestry is 100%. Some scholars also have mentioned Qom as the origin of his father since it is in some manuscripts and biographies, but this is not accept by all scholars. So the only thing we know about his father is what Nezami tells us: Yusuf the son of Zakki the son of Muhammad. The Christianity of Shirin is supported by all evidences and ancient sources, and she was an actual person. Her Armenianness is well known in Persian poetry and many Persian poets and even some Turkish (Alisher Navaii) have mentioned it. So the compromise I am trying to reach is that: "Nezami Ganjavi..born in Ganja..Kurdish mother. His fathers name was.... His heritage is shared by Iran and Azerbaijan..Made outstanding contributions to Persian literature and cutlre.". That should end this dispute, but I am waiting for other people and I am not sure what the silence is for. The page will be locked until there is a mutual agreement. I know I wrote a lot, but that was to be expected and I will compile and summarize what I wrote somewhere else since I am not here to push my view when Wikipedia has NOR. --Ali doostzadeh 01:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

For Baku87, on spelling here is what Britannica says: Nezami also spelled Nizami greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature, who brought a colloquial and realistic style to the Persian epic. . --Ali doostzadeh 06:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok I understand your point Ali but Azeris started speaking Turkic language after the 12th century (well according to some sources and me) then untill the 12th century there was no contribution to Azeri literture? By the way I think we should add this photo of Nizami statue, I think its a real nice statue and represents him very well. Baku87 07:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Thanks for the nice photo. IS it from Ganjah? It would be nice and accurate to have a photo of his tomb from Ganjah as well. As per Azerbaijani literatur, Qadi Burhan al-din of the 14th century and a certain Nusayr Bakui from the Ilkhanid era were the first to compose in this language from the area. I believe these were suppored by the Ilkhanid courts, who spoke both Persian and Turkish in their courts. Probably though the earliest sample is Hassan Asfarayani, from Asfarayn Khurasan from the 13th century. The Seljuqids either mixed in with lots of royal Iranian families(like the Nezam Almolk family and also the rulers of Tabarestaan and even Alisher Navaoi calls them Sart) and also they did not have any sort of nationalistic consciousness and considered themselves more Iranian than Turks.--Ali doostzadeh 13:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new suggestions

Okay guys I am trying to accomadate the article so that everyone feels they can share in Nizami's heritage.

here is a start:

Nizami Ganjavi (نظامی گنجوی in Persian, Nizami Gəncəvi in Azerbaijani)‎ (1141 – 1209), whose full name was Nizām ad-Dīn Abū Muhammad Ilyās ibn-Yusūf ibn-Zakī ibn-Mu'ayyid is considered the greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature, who brought a colloquial and realistic style to the Persian epic. His heritage is shared by Iran, Azerbaijan and Persian speaking lands. His mother, named Ra'isa, was of a Kurdish background and his fathers, named Yusuf is mentioned once by Nizami. Nizami was orphaned early and lived with his uncle. Nizami spent his lifetime in Ganja, the capital of Arran in what is now Azerbaijan, then part of Seljuq empire, where he also remained until his death and where currently his tomb is located.

Note I left controversial topics 1) like qom, 2) his father ethnic background (which we will never agree upon perhaps, although I am convinced it is 100% Iranian) out of the picture. Also one line quotes without context to display some nationalism will be left out. The article should try to display the humanity and universality of Nizami. I am still waiting for other users suggestion, specially those that I disagreed with in the past, mainly the following Wikipedia users: Grandmaster,AdilBaguirov, Baku87... Thanks. --Ali doostzadeh 05:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• support - sounds good to me. Tājik 18:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• I agree as well. —Khoikhoi 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• support - Although instead of Seljuk empire it should say Sultanate of Rûm.--Eupator 14:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

comment - The Sultanate of Rum never extended to Arran. At that time, it was a main domain of the Ildenizid atabekdom of Azerbaijan.--Kober 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• support - Grandmaster 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the prolonged absense, but it's good to see the emotions cool down and many people agreeing on things. My comments: the intro suggested by Ali is better than the present one. But 1) in the list, "shared by Iran, Azerbaijan and Persian speaking lands", Azerbaijan should go first, both due to alphabetic order, the birth place, and the fact that Azerbaijan is not a (predominantly) Persian speaking land - which it implies by having it sandwiched inbetween Iran and Persian speaking lands. Secondly, "Aran" is just a geographic area in between Kura and Araxes, which sometimes doubled as a substitute name for Caucasian Albania in Arabic and Iranian authors, i.e., also had a political connotation. But mainly, and in case of modern usage only, used as geographic entity, like Mughan or Shirvan. Meanwhile, Nizami was born, lived and died in one country, and the country's name was very precise, and well defined by by even Enc. Iranica [2] as the Atabek State of Azerbaijan (Atabakan-e Azerbaijan), which was also part of the Seljuk Empire (although the Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan were the main rulers of the Seljuk empire). Nizami is also mentioned in the article. Same with another article about Ganja, Nizami is mentioned again: “It thus came under Saljuq control and, in the later 6th/12th century under that of the Atabeg line of Ildegizids (see ATAÚBAKAÚN-E AÚZòARBAÚYJAÚN)….. The new town became the focus of a great period of efflorescence, seen in the laudatory verses quoted by Mostawf^ (Nozhat al-qolu@b, pp. 91-92) and its nurturing of the great poet Nezáa@m^ Ganjav^.” [3] Additionally, most scholars even in the West, call him "Nizami Ganjavi", and not just "Nezami". In Azerbaijani his name actually becomes Nizami Ganjali, and that's how they call him in his native Ganja. But most scholars, even Meisami, call him Nizami Ganjavi. This is regarding the less contentious portions.

Regarding Qom - I am not against mentioning this theory, but in light of evidence and quotes presented, it would require to write more (in terms of lines) to show that it was a latter addition, is not credible and is false. Likewise, since Qom issue is important only from the standpoint of the view about ethnic composition of the city, it would require to put information that Turkic population was quite sizeable at the time in Iran as well (and I think Cambridge History of Iran has relevant sources in English about that). Plus the fact that there is a Qom village in the mountains of north Azerbaijan, probably about 150 km from Ganja.

Shirin - she was not Armenian, but Arranian princess and later queen. Ali gave citations of other poets (i.e., not Nizami), such as Turkic poet from India Amir Khosrow Dehlevi, calling her queen of Armenia. That obviously doesn't translate into being Armenian. Moreover, Tigranes II Great, as well as all Orontides, Arsacids and Artaxias are called mistakenly by many as "Armenian" kings/dynasties, while being Persian and Parthian. Many Arabic language authors are routinely called Arab. But in any case, what others thought of Shirin is not very relevant - what matters, is who she was for Nizami. And she was, together with her aunt, 1) descendant of Afrasiyab, the mythical king of Turan/Turkestan; 2) drunk milk as her main food and 3) had almond or gazelle-like eyes. Nizami clearly based the character of Shirin on his wife Afak/Appaq. None other than most prominent ethnic Armenian poetess and expert on Nizami, prof. Marietta Shaginyan, dismissed Shirin's being Armenian, and corrects it to Arranian. Here are the relevant quotes from her book: “Arran princess Shirin” (M.Shaginyan, “Studies/sketches about Nizami”, 1955/1981, p. 23), and “Hammer is mistakenly calling Aghvans [Albans, Arranians – ed.] (inhabitants of Arran) as Armenians”, M.Shaginyan (ibid., p. 63), in critique of the European Orientalist’s 1818 book on Persian literature. That's probably one of the reasons for mistakes, when any Christian from South Caucasus was mistakenly called Armenian very often. Meanwhile, even "Armenian princess", like "Persian poet", does not denote ethnicity.

Despite having Armenia in the text -- which is common to have such an ancient and exotic name to be featured in texts of regional authors -- Shirin just travelled (i.e, not lived!) there, as Armenia was a geographic concept to begin with as there was no independent country either in Nizami's time or in Khosrov time for that matter. And Armenia is mentioned along with bunch of other geographic zones. Here are some relevant verses (from “Shapur’s story about Shirin”) (quick translation into English mine, the first verses are about Mihin-Banu, Shirin’s aunt):

“There, beyond the chain of mountains, where the entire expanse is beautiful, where joyful Derbent, and sea, and gulf, There is a woman. She has the shine of a royal high office/cloth/dignity. Boiling of her army reached Isfahan. Till Armenia the mighty land/country of Arran belongs (is obedient) to her. My ruler, know this: many regions send her tributes like a lamb/cap in hand. In the world there are probably no happier creatures (people). Countless castles she has in the mountains. How large is her treasury – only Allah knows. <…> For any month … she has countless havens. In the days of rose Madam will travel to Mughan [south-eastern region of Azerbaijan]… to enjoy the tribute of the springtime. In the mountains of Armenia she roams/roves in the summer [!!! That’s it!] …. And when autumn will come – and there, she does a raid on the game in Abkhazia [that’s northern Georgia!] In the winter she is in Barda [that’s back to North Azerbaijan, Arran]. Defiant (scorning) times of year, she lives, forgetting, what is foul weather. There [in Barda] she breathes happier, where it is easier to breath for heart/chest … And there, in her castle, it its beautiful captivity, Her niece lives. You would have considered her a diva. <…> She is more beautiful than roses, She was called/named Sweetie, She is – Shirin…. She is said/reputed to be the heir to Mihin-Banu … And after all, Mihin-Banu, who governs/rules/possesses the whole country, has not one/multiple such treasuries”.

When describing Khosrov’s travel after Shirin, Nizami also has the following lines:

“Then – in Mughan [eastern region in Azerbaijan/Arran] he is; then his graceful figure showing wayfarer, he arrived to Baharzan. <….> Mihin-Banu stands up. Kissing the earth, She said: “Shah!” He replied: “I’m listening”. “My capital [!!!], my guest, decorate with your attendance/visit; Barda is so joyful in the winter! You should pack up there. In winter times you won’t get any warmer weather than there, There grass is juicy, there water is in excess”. Khosrov agreed. He said: “You go. I will follow you to that incredible territory/region”. <…> [What a] fine country! The sparkling wreath and ruler’s throne have been brought [to it]”.

From the chapter “Flight of Khosrov from Behram Chubine” in “Khosrov and Shirin”:

“In impassible (bad) roads he penetrated into Arran [western Azerbaijan, sometimes all of Azerbaijan, the name of the whole country], From there he traveled to Mughan [south-eastern region of Azerbaijan (Arran)]: in Mughan did Shirin live [!!!].”

Here’s about both Mihin-Banu and Shirin being descendants of Afrasiyab, in the chapter “Lecture/admonition of Mihin-Banu to Shirin”, where Mihin-Banu speaks to Shirin:

“He [Khosrov] – is the month, you – are the moon, and our heritage/roots are just as famous/celebrated. Yes, we – are [from] Afrasiyab, if he is equal to Jamshid”.

Here’s an interesting passage from the poem, from the chapter “Khosrov leaves/abandons Shirin and goes to Rum [Byzantum]. Wedding of Khosrov with Maryam [the Christian daughter of the Christian king of Byzantum]”:

“In Constantinople to the Kaiser/Caesar [ruler] he [Khosrov] has appeared. Also has become thoughtful then the lord of Rum, And his important head the thought has furrowed. Lucky he has considered for the house Arrival of Khosrov in Rum; and he has embraced him. Having learned, that in numbers of stars there is love/attachment, instead of the insidiousness, To the arrived he has decided to hand over his empire. And to give - though he erected the temple of Christianity - To Parviz [Khosrov] as a wife his daughter – princess Maryam”.

What is the importance of this verse? That is, Nizami emphasizes and indeed stressed an important fact that Maryam was Christian, as was the Rum/Byzantum Empire – something he NEVER did for Mihin-Banu and her kingdom and/or Shirin, her niece and future ruler of the Arran kingdom.

Also, note that Nizami always spells all the names in the Muslim manner appropriate for poetry of his time – i.e., Maryam instead of Maria, Isa instead of Jesus, Ibrahim instead of Abraham, Iskender instead of Alexander, Afrasiyab instead of other variations, etc.

Anyways, I think if we just read the relevant passages (Ali also included I think two verses about Armenia) we can see that she could not have been Christian, much less Armenian, and that her capital was in Barda, perhaps the second most favorite city of Nizami after Ganja - he had it as capital of Nushaba in Iskender-nameh too. --AdilBaguirov 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. Looks like ensha' allah we are near an agreement. I even propose that after an agreement is reached, we take out the harsh words and long comments from the talk page, if time permits. I archived all previous talks, so that page is within a friendly atmosphere.

I agree with mentioning the Atabak state of Azerbaijan and the relavent Iranica link can be given.

As per heriated shared by Azerbaijan and Iran, we can say Nizami Ganjavi's heritage is shared by: Azerbaijan and Persian speaking lands Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. This effectively takes care of the confusion. It doesn't bother me if Azerbaijan is mentioned first either since we are saying the heritage is shared. Of course if I was going to be very picky I would say shared equally, but I think that is fine.

Looks like though there is two things Adil disagrees with, and here is my proposal:

1) For the Qom theory actually Nezami mentions "Tafresh" and "Taa" and these are two well known areas of Qom in modern Iran in central Iran near Qom.

cho dorr gar cheh dar bahr-e ganjeh gomam valee az ghohestan-e shahr-e ghomam beh tafresh dehee hast taa naam-e oo Nezamee az aanjaa shodeh naam-joo

But as I said, we don't need to mention that since some scholars agree and some don't. So we don't to have a dispute over this and we'll just mention the fathers names. On Nezami Ganjavi, the Ganjavi part is common and I think even Jami mentions it and Brtiannica does. So we'll leave it as Ganjavi as it is common in the West already.

2) On Shirin which is the more important dispute than it first looked like

For example the Afrasiyaab verse is about Khaykhusraw and not Jamshid and I already discussed it, and she doesn't consider herself a descendant of afrasiyaab, she justs said if he is like KeykhUsraw(son of afarsiyaab) then we are like Afrasiyaab (the father of Khusraw in the Shahnameh)... Jamshid would not make sense in this context from a mythology point of view. Or Armenia is mentioned 12+ times in the story and Barda' being a summer capital does not negate her armenianess. Almond means simply eyes in Persian literature..

Despite this no where does Nizami directly refer to Shirin's ethnicity, her being considered an Armenian by most scholars has to do with the fact that many other poets have mentioned it (even Alisher Navaoi). The fact of the matter is that if we are going to by Nizami, then many of the characters have become very mythical, geographical areas have become blurred (Nizami was not a geography major). That is why one looks at all of Persian poetry. Then there is Christian part, although see the Cambridge history of Iran and other sources where Shirin is actually mentined as a real character and a Christian in Khusraw's court.

But here is my proposal, since I don't think it is necessary to go back and forth on this issue and opinions were given multiple times without any results.

I hope Adil and others that disagree can be satisfied by the following proposal:

We each reference just one source about this matter. Adil can reference the source that she is mentioned as an Arranian(Caucasian Albanian) and I will mention a source the she is mentioned as Armenian (mainly the Encyclopedia Iranica article) and then we will leave it at that. We can leave the Christian and religious part out for scholars as well, although both Caucasian Albanian or Armenian at that time (end of Sassanid era) were Christians and some were Zoroastrians.

I think this would be sufficient to solve this matter. --Ali doostzadeh 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, this is indeed very constructive and academic approach. And I agree about cleaning up the archives of emotional word usage. We should have a toast to that Ali! :-) All the best, --AdilBaguirov 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent

All right guys, thanks to everyone specially Adil for the debates and discussions. Although I don't drink but heck it is good to get this long discussion over with and a toast of OJ is good. :) I have requested unlock for this article and I will put in the minor details we agreed upon as soon as it is unlocked. In due time, I will also clean some of the hard tones from the archives and it is excellent that we all can be proud about Nezami Ganjavi and share in his lofty heritage. --Ali doostzadeh 02:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Ali, I would like to thank you and Adil for the constructive approach, which allowed us to resolve this lengthy dispute. Grandmaster 04:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis of epics -- either too brief or too wordy

Guys, right now I think our priority should be reconicle the info about each of the 5 epics -- as well as mention the Divan of Nizami a little more prominently. The problem I see is that there is an overkill of info about Khosrov and Shirin (too much for an encyclopedia), a lot about Haft Paykar, and almost nothing about other epics, not to mention the Divan (which is mentioned only as "he left a small corpus of lyric poetry", not mentioning the title for such works, Divan, and that they are up to 2,000 beyts from their original size of 20,000). Then, why is there original Persian for one epic but not for the others? Also, why use clearly outdated Wilson's translations when there is Meisami's, and otherwise more modern or poetic translations for others? We are supposed to give a sneak peak of those stories, not try to pack the whole story into a one page. :-) We should not give more than 4-8 lines I think for each epic. Also, we mention Gholam H. Darab as a translator separately for the first epic, but no one for the others - why? Finally, we should mention whom was each epic dedicated to -- that's very important as well. Also, we do not mention anything about his knowledge of languages and in general education. To avoid any problems, we can simply quote those two relevant passages about Pahlavi, Jewish, Arabic, Tabari, Bukhari, etc. It would be good to otherwise include more non-contentious info into the article, such as tezkire's and imitations by other poets, such as Amir Khosrov Dehlevi and Alisher Navoi. Perhaps even some cool quotes about Nizami by famous poets and scholars, attesting to his grandeur. --AdilBaguirov 12:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are good suggestion.. I have shortened the story of Khusraw and Shirin.. since it is best for users to read it. Soon, I will start a brief but comprehensive section on Nizami's influence on Arabic, Persian, Turkish and Urdu literature. Probably one or two line on each. Also I have put the rulers mentioned. It would be too long to put verses from each poem and so I chose the two best works Khusraw o Shirin and Haft Paykar. See this for example: [4]. Also some praises for Nezami from other classical poets like Jami and Alisher Navai and others will be available soon. I have put the available English translations as well. --Ali doostzadeh 18:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Nizami poems each deserve a separate article, and here we just need to give a brief description of them with links to more detailed articles. Just a thought for future. Grandmaster 18:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point, although writing a long article on each of Nezami's 5 jewls is not easy and might actually do injustice in my opinion. One really has to go through the various stories to appreciate it and a few boring lines will kill the story. I had added some of the most recent translations to the article and hopefully after reading the article, the readers will buy some of the translations from the amazon links.. --Ali doostzadeh 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I also think that writting seperate articles foe each of his works is a good idea. These articles should also have a short summary of Nezami. 69.196.164.190

Thanks for carrying out most of the edits Ali, it looks better. But still too wordy I think -- there is too much of verses for some poems, and yet very little about Nizami himself, his abilities, education, etc. For example, there is nothing about Nizami's uncle (from father's side) haji Omar Hasan, who must have played an important role in the upbringing of the young orphan Ilyas. Also, the fact that mother was from the Shaddadi's. while there is no direct evidence, Nizami must have known Afzaladdin Khagani Shirvani and Mehseti Ganjavi. Indeed, when his grave was opened, along with his skeleton, the remains of a woman were found. Academician Hamid Arasly, one of earliest Soviet-Azerbaijani literary experts, dismissed the possibility of those remains being one of his wives, and gave more credibility to the possibility of it being Mehseti Ganjavi (he did this citing folk stories of Ganja's elders). Although it of course could have been Afak/Appaq.

Also, we might want to explain that "Nizami" was a tahallus of the poet and what it meant, in what language, why. It would be become very relevant once we reach the section about his legacy, since the current wording "Nezami was influenced greatly by Ferdowsi, Sanai, Asad Gorgani Asadi Tusi and other great poets before him" (it doesn't mention Rudaki) leaves an ambiguous feeling about him (and I realize that it is hard to succinctly express this point). What I mean is that Nizami knew, respected, perhaps adored all these poets, but clearly viewed himself as the best, with even direct parallels (some of which I've cited in our archives discussion, such as "What the Kings Book had half-said, I said fully: what jewel he had half-pierced I pierced wholly.") about his pearl (a poetic reference) being better than theirs. Hence, he was not "influenced" as in "being in their shaddow", but rather was, just like Aristotle, as great as his teacher Plato. Also, he clearly understood that the time of massive epics Shahname-style about the constant wars of kings and rulers is over, and it is time to come up with new style. It should be noted that in Russian-language scholarship he is considered as a Sufi poet and bringining Rennaissance to the poetry, centuries before European poets such as Thomas Mora or Campanella.

This is why such great German poets as Goethe considered Nizami as one of the 7 greatest poets ever, in the whole world [5] and Henry Heine said "Germany has its own great poets...But who are they in comparison to Nizami" [6]. There is a good quote from Vahid Dastgirdi that "...the poem of Fahraddin Gurgani is weaker and resembles a candle put in front of the Sun" (he compares Vis and Ramin to Khosrov and Shirin). There are some very good quotes from Hafiz, Rumi and Saadi. One of the best is by Amir Khosrow Dehlevi himself: "The ruler of the kindom of words, famed hero, Scholar and poet, his goblet [glass] toasts. In it - pure wine, it's drunkingly sweet, Yet in goblet [glass] beside us - only muddy setting."

BTW, there is nothing about who ordered the Iskandar-nameh in the text. And M.Shaginyan writes that there are more tezkire from Turkic poets to Nizami than from ethnic Persian poets. --AdilBaguirov 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Adil. About Iskandarnameh, it is not known who it is dedicated to, although there are some guesses, but most scholars are not sure. About references and biographies to nizami, I would guess there is much more Persian books since from classical period there is much more Persian works than Turkish from the classical period. There are dozens of Tazzakura's that refer to Nizami greatly in Persian. Also Sai'd Nafisi lists about 75 classical period Persian poets who tried to imitate Nizami's style. That he was influenced by Sanai and Ferdowsi is well known of course. This does not make him less than any of these poets and indeed Sa'id Nafisi considers Ferdowsi, Nizami, Naser Khusraw, Hafez, Sa'adi, Ommar Khayyar and Attar as the greatest and it is hard to compare different poets due to their different styles. Actually in that verse about Ferdowsi, Nizami mentions that Ferdowsi did not develop the full story of Haft Paykar. Had ferdowsi spent a long time on each story, then his shahnameh would never have been completed. The reason is that Shahnameh basically contains about 50 stories and Nizami developed three of the famous ones: eskandarnamah, haft paykar and Khusraw o shirin. I would say Ferdowsi was Nizami's greatest (of course others have said that) influence and the reason is that he even advises the son of Shirvanshah and his son to read shahnameh plus Nizami references him more than any author and three themes of his stories are from the Shahnameh although with more details. For example Hafez was influenced greatly by Sa'adi, Nizami, Ferdowsi. Virtually none of the classical poets developed on their own and they were influenced greatly by previous poets. Simply said, without Rudaki there would be no Ferdowsi and without Ferdowsi Nizami would not be the same either and without Nizami there would be no Dehlavi or Jami. About Goethe, if you have any quotes in English let me know. Besides Nizami, Goethe himself is a major figure and considered Hafez to be the greatest poet of any language and he knew Eastern literature and the Qur'an well. So that would definitely be great. Nizami does make a reference to Khaghani in his work and how he passed away. I am not sure if this detail is necessary. I have added the quote from Amir Khosrow Dehlavi. About his mother being Shaddadi, I do not see any reference to that in Nizam's work or any classical authors. About his uncle and education, that is a good point and I added a section for education. Nizami makes an interesting comment that he is nothing but his works that is why inserting about his work, is actually describing Nizami himself. I also added Khwajah Umar as his uncle name , which he directly refers to as Khawajah Umar and did not find Haji Umar Hassan in any verse. He mentions Khwajah Umar after mentioning his Father and then his Mother in Layla o Majnoon. If you see Haji Umar Hassan somewhere else, let me know. About the grave I have heared that story. Many graves related to great figures are sometimes attributed as well. --Ali doostzadeh 02:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, I am not denying any influences as I made clear -- and realize that Firdowsi had been the biggest such influence. However, the term "influence" might be misunderstood and otherwise could potentially detract from Nizami's greatness. As you noted, their style is very different. I listed both names for the uncle just in case, since I've seen them both before, but Omar/Umar is correct, I don't know where did those sources get the Hasan from. Meanwhile, Haji and Khwajah is the same title, just Hoja is used in Turkic and Arabic languages, whilst Khwajah in Persian. Both should be used to avoid confusion and facilitate search. Unfortunately, I do not have the relevant Goethe book, thus have to go with my own Russian translation. In any case it is orignally written in German. We can mention that Goethe was a big fan of Nizami and knew well of his works, that is easy to research in english. Perhaps at some later date any of us will be able to add relevant quotes. On his mother being Shaddadi, it is written in some Russian-language books (I recall perhaps only 2) and in Paul Smith. The latter also lists the name of Nizami's second wife, which surprized me as I didn't think the names of his two later wives were preserved. Where did Nizami mention Khagani, I do not recall it? I wonder howcome there was no reverse - i.e, Khagani mentioning Nizami? In all books I've read they do maintain they knew of each other, etc., but I've never seen any direct quote from any of the two great poets about each other. --AdilBaguirov 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually Khwajah and Haji are two different roots. Khwajah is Persian word meaning master, master of the house.. and is a respectful title. It has entered ottoman Turkish as Hoja but in in Iranian Azerbaijani, Hoja probably does not exist since the Kh sound exists. The reason anatolian Turkish does not have kh unlike many other Turkic dialects is due to Greek influence. The same holds true with the Arabic Qaf (almost like Q) where the Greek language did not have it and so they produce it as k. Also Haji as you well know is someone that makes the pilgrimage and is not related to Hoja. About Paul Smith, I only see that he translated from English to English so I do not see any support for Shaddadid. I do not think he is a Nizami scholar or has even a doctorate in that field. Virtually I haven't seen any serious scholar of Nezami mention this Shaddadid origin and did not find support for it in the actual works of Nezami nore in any of the old biographers. Same with the name of the 2nd wife which has never been found. Even on the name of his first wife, some scholars just think Afagh (horizon) was an adjective, but it was left there since a good amount of scholars believe so. On Khaghani and Nezami knowing each other there is a very famous verse from Nezami about Khaghani's death: همی گفتم که خاقانی دریغاگوی من باشد دریغا من شدم آخر دریغا گوی خاقانی

my translation: I always said that may Khaghani appear at my funeral mourning What a mourning and pity it has become for me now that I am mourner at Khaghani's funeral.

I think I can find the Goethe quote from Said Nafisi , or other source and will check tommorow. I think it is important to have the Goethe quote and it is a great suggestion. About greatly influenced let me know any suggestions. I think the case definitely holds for Ferdowsi mainly since Nezami mentions Ferdowsi and his book directly at least 5 times off the top of my head and is mentioned in three of Nezami's book as well Nezami advising his son and Shirvanshah's son to read the Shahnameh. Three of the five jewels are themes picked out from Ferdowsi. There is even couplets that are from the Shahnameh, with a only one or two words that are different or couplets that convey the exact thoughts using pretty much the same words. But for example it does not hold as much for someone like Rudaki and it is just influence there. --Ali doostzadeh 21:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

okay one of the Goethe quotes was inserted. --Ali doostzadeh 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Please add his poam همه عالم تن است و ایران دل نیست گوینده زین قیاس خجل "Iran is The Heart and all the universe The Body, Of this claim, the poet feels no regret or humility."

[edit] Lifetime - rv. to compromised version

We've reached a compromise on the Nizami article last summer, and a part of that was the Life section. Today, it looks like this: "Little is known of Nezami's life, except that he spent it in what is now Azerbaijan.[2]"

Under the earliest compromise version of Ali it was: "Nizami was orphaned early and lived with his uncle. Nizami spent his lifetime in Ganja, the capital of Arran in what is now Azerbaijan, then part of Seljuq empire, where he also remained until his death and where currently his tomb is located."

Another version done about the same time by me had: "Nezami was born in Ganja, the capital of Arran in Azerbaijan, then Atabek State of Azerbaijan ^[1], part of the Seljuq Empire, where he remained until his death."

I prefer a middle version of the last two, which would be best at describing the geographic and political situation on the ground in Nizami's time: "Nizami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities of the Atabek (Atabeg) State of Azerbaijan, part of the Seljuk Empire, where he remained his whole life. Nizami was orphaned early and was raised by his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar (Hoja Omar), who afforded him an excellent education."

I will look at other parts of the page, as it seems there are more differences from the previous versions.

Also, most Western scholars now spell Nezami with an "i" instead of "e". While I am not requesting we switch the name, and realize we have redirecs in place, but perhaps we could add that spelling, "Nizami", in parenthesis, right next to "Nezami". I would also welcome comments on the idea that we add "Ganjavi" to the title too, since there were many poets who went under the name of Nizami, including Aruzi who became fairly famous. --AdilBaguirov 01:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good with just a minor edit. Afghan Persian actually says Nizami. نظامی. I think suggesting alternative spelling is good idea since Arabic is also Nizami. Your version sounds good, I just want to modify it since both Persian and Azerbaijani Turkish have kh sound and hoja is actually the Ottoman Turkish version of Persian Khaajeh/Khwajeh ( Khwajeh is archaic). The official language of Turkey due to Greek influence or other reasons does not have the Q and Kh (x) sound fundamental to all other Turkic languages/dialects. Also of course Nezami wrote خواجه khaajeh/khwajeh. Nezami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities of the Atabek (Atabeg) State of Azerbaijan, part of the Seljuk Empire, where he remained his whole life. Nizami was orphaned early and was raised by his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar who afforded him an excellent education. --alidoostzadeh 01:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ali. Should we offer the alternative spelling for khwaja, though? Or just create a special separate page? The thing is, I think "hoja" has become more popular in English, in no minor part due to Molla Nasreddin, who is also Hoja Nasreddin. Sometimes could be also spelled as Khoja -- this and "hoja" are typical of Russian transliteration, too, and hence adds them greater popularity than khwaja. Of course, this is not to be confused with Haji (Khaji), the person who made a hajj pilgrimage. Also, let's think of how else to expand this biography -- the man was obviously extremely educated and was not just a poet, but much more. I had even a book by an astronomer, who was impressed by Nizami's knowledge of astronomy. There is a lot of research on his poems about the music of the time. And of course much much more. His knowledge of many languages should also be noted. --AdilBaguirov 07:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I've inserted the version you wrote out above -- why did you revert it back to the old version that we never agreed to last year? --AdilBaguirov 16:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't say "Nezami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities of the Atabek (Atabeg) State of Azerbaijan" when there was no country named Azerbaijan back then and the Atabek region was not called Azerbaijan. Stick with what the oxford source says, "in what is now Azerbaijan". --Mardavich 16:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was a country named Azerbaijan, that's the whole thing, and aside from much scholarship about this in Russian language, the article by Luther in Enc. Iranica confirms that. Read lengthy discussions in this talk page for more, and stick to facts. --AdilBaguirov 16:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You and I both know there was no country named Azerbaijan in 1141. Such revisionist history belongs on zerbaijan.com, not here. --Mardavich 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think so, then you are obviously wrong, since too many scholars and encyclopedia's think so (in addition to the already cited Encyclopedia Iranica):

1) 1137–75 Shams al-Din Eldiguz, the atabeg of the Seljuk sultan of Baghdad, established an independent dynastic state in Azerbaijan and northwestern Iran that lasted until 1225. http://www.bartleby.com/67/302.html

2) "Eldegüzid Dynasty, also spelled Ildigüzid, Ildegüzid, Ildegizid , or Ildenizid, (1137–1225), Iranian atabeg dynasty of Turkish origin that ruled in Azerbaijan (now divided between Iran and Azerbaijan)." "Eldegüzid Dynasty." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 31 Jan. 2007 <http://secure.britannica.com/eb/article-9032246>.

3) The Atabegs Atabeg was a Turkish title used by the Seljuks for members of the court ministers and leaders. Some of the Atabegs managed to take control of the state leading to the emergence of the petty states in the 12th century A.D. in Iran and Syria. They ruled for a long period of time, most remarkable among them were the Atabegs of Azerbaijan and Iran. ‏الأتابكة : أتابك : لقب تركي أطلقه السلاجقة على بعض رجال البلاط والوزراء والقادة، تمكن بعض الأتابكة من السيطرة على الحكم فنشأت في القرن 12 م دويلات متعددة في بلاد فارس وبلاد الشام وطال حكمها. أشهرها أتابكة أذربيجان وفارس.‏ http://dictionary.al-islam.com/Eng/Dicts/SelDict.asp?Lang=Eng&DI=66&Theme=18

4) Peter Stearns, William Leonard Langer (ed.). The Encyclopedia of World History: ancient, medieval, and modern. Sixth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001, p. 119

5) "At first, [Jalal al-Din] Hasan allied himself to the Kwarazmshah ruler, but then he allied himself with caliph al-Nasir. Hasan materially helped the atabeg of Azerbaijan in the wars in ‘Iraq ‘Ajami, once in a joint military campaign, and once by sending an assassin." Qamar-ul Huda. "Striving for Divine Union: Spiritual Exercises for Suhraward Sufis." RoutledgeCurzon, 2003, p. 35.

Do not revert and edit what has already been agreed to previously by several active editors. --AdilBaguirov 20:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I support that opinion. I had the same experience with some other pages - the edit which was agreed upon previously should be first discussed before making changes--Dacy69 20:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

From: Aram Vardanian. "Coinage of Armenia in the Twelfth - Early Thirteenth Centuries". State History Museum of Armenia & The Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography. http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/features/numisarticles.php?id=155

The Ildegizid State was a feudal principality situated on what is now the territory of Azerbaijan. It included a certain part of Transcaucasia. The capital of the State was Ganja. At first the Ildegizid State was the vassal of the Iraqi sultanate, however, soon the dynasty's founder Shams al-din Ildegiz (531-571AH/1136-1175AD) was assigned by the sultan Masud (529-547AH/1134-1152AD) as an atabeg of the future sultan of Iraqi and Western Iran Arslan bin Tughril (556-571AH/1161-1176AD). Then, the Ildegizid State had begun to get stronger, and since the beginning of the sultan Arslan (556AH/1161AD) ruling the State has been quite independent, which spent its own internal and external policy. During the power of Ildegiz and Muhammad Jahan Pahlavan (571-582AH/1175-1186AD) the vassalitet conception became nominal. At the time of the next atabeg Muzaffar al-din Qizil Arslan (582-587AH/1187-1191AD), the Ildegizid State achieved the highest power and prosperity. The Iraqi sultans turned into the puppet sovereigns allotted by the small power. In 587AH/1191AD the last Iraqi sultan Tughril III (571-590AH/1176-1194AD) was overthrowed. Qizil Arslan became the sultan. At his successor Nusrat al-din Abu Bakr (587-607AH/1191-1210AD), the Iraqi sultanate has completely lost its independence and finally dissappeared from the historical arena. The last powerful ruler was Uzbek bin Muhammad (607-622AH/1210-1225AD). According to the J.Kolbas's paper, the Ildegizid State disappeared at all in the 70s of the thirteenth century.

The Ildegizids left rich copper emission, which during 70 years played a significant role in the coinage of Pre-Mongol Transcaucasia. Their coins appear in a great number within region as by finds and hoards.40 In view of the "Silver Crisis" the Ildegizid coins were made of copper.41 In 1957 ?.?.Pakhomov noted, that the Ildegizids issued two types of coins: of regular and irregular striking.42 In both cases the weight and size of issued coins were not permanent.43 Coins were struck at different mints, predominantly concentrated on the territory of Azerbaijan and Iran. Though the mint place was seldom meant on the coins, it is known, that they were issued in Ganja, Shamkhor, Tabriz, Ardabil, Nakhichevan, Berda, Urmiya, Baylakan etc.44 In the numismatic literature there is a judgement, that the atabegs had a mint in Dvin too.45 Despite of huge quantity of Ildegizid coins revealed in Dvin, the issue still remains questionable and requires separate consideration.

The coin emission was started by the first Ildegizid Shams al-din Ildegiz about 547AH/ 1152AD.46 Huge quantity of his coins is fixed in Armenia. Those are the hoards from Aygestan, Yeghvard, Pteghni, Dvin, Garni, Ashtarak etc, as well as the coins from the excavations of Dvin, ?nberd and Garni. More than ten types of Ildegiz's coins are known.47 Though the issue of his coins began during the governance of the sultan Ghiyath al-din Masud (529-547AH/1134-1152AD), they become intensively to come in to Armenia not earlier than 1160AD.48 Dvin material shows, that only two types of Ildegiz coins had got widespread occurrence in the north-eastern Armenia. --AdilBaguirov 20:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• These are all good sources about the Ildenizid state but they are just that, about the Ildenizid state. The sources say that they were in the territory of what is now Azerbaijan. That's it.--Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all those sources say that the state's official name was Azerbaijan. --AdilBaguirov 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil, is there a classic source that they called their state Azerbaijan? When did they make such a proclamation? Also please see the discussion below. It seems that the dynasty ruled different portions of Iran , Arran, Azerbaijan..etc. and sometimes did not rule some major cities of Azerbaijan like Maragheh. Anyways I do not think the details of Atabek state are relavent to when Nezami was born after doing secondary research. It seems when Nezami was born in Ganja, the area was in full control of Seljuqids. Later on the Atabekan assert almost complete control, but by the time of Nizami's death, their state was in deacy. Thus technically speaking, the time Nezami was born, the atabekan were not a state, but just provincial rulers on behalf of Seljuqs. --alidoostzadeh 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There are enough sources that show the name of the state as Azerbaijan. I think the fact that so many sources, including compilative sources like Iranica, name it Azerbaijan, despite being well aware of the fact that "Azerbaijan" generally denotes mostly lands south of Araxes, and that proves a lot. Nizami was indeed born in Ganja, but Ganja still belonged to Azerbaijan Atabek State, which was always, sometimes only technically, part of Seljuk Empire (which is noted in ours wording). Just like all people of USSR from 1920 to 1991 (1940-1989 for Baltics), were born in their respective union republics, which in turn were part of USSR. Just like people born in Paris still say and write they are French, not EUians. Likewise, people born today in Kazan, in their passports say they were born in Tatarstan Republic, Russian Federation. Examples of such arrangements and statuses abound. --AdilBaguirov 04:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think actually since there was so many Atabeks, a way for historians to designate them was the major area they controlled by the region they controlled (Fars, Azarbaijan, Yazd, Lorestan..). I'll try to find more about this issue, but I guess an official historical source from that era would satisfy my curiosity. --alidoostzadeh 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There were only one Great Atabeks, who towered above others -- the Atabeks of Azerbaijan. Just like there was only one true Khan dynasty -- that of Chingiz and his grandson. All others are not anywhere near. --AdilBaguirov 05:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation by Mardavich

WP:AN/3RR

1. (cur) (last) 16:44, January 31, 2007 Mardavich (Talk | contribs) (see WP:NPA, I KNOW what I am talking about)
2. (cur) (last) 16:38, January 31, 2007 Mardavich (Talk | contribs) (→Education)
3. (cur) (last) 16:29, January 31, 2007 Mardavich (Talk | contribs) (rv, there was no Azerbaijan back then)
4. (cur) (last) 18:05, January 30, 2007 Mardavich (Talk | contribs) (rv, Nezami is the common name)

Please don't engage in revert wars, especially without discussing anything on the Talk pages and not participating in the debates that have been held here for months. --AdilBaguirov 21:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake

guys I went to edit that Nezami and Nizami are both correct transliterations.. by mistake I think I removed the image , then r.v. to mardavich to get the image back and etc. I hope there was no misunderstandings as I didn't check wikipedia for 10 hours! (and wow lots of stuff can happen in 10 hours as mentioned by the discussion above!). I think since the new version caused some discomfort, we can say part of the seljuq empire under control of the Atabeks of Azerbaijan or going by this one [7] Eldigüzid or Ildegizid ruler in Arran, most of Azerbaijan, and then Jebal. Although me and Adil agreed, it looks like some users objected to the word state since Atabeks officially considered themselves part of Seljuq empire. Iledigizd is a good term also. Since the terms [8] Atabakan-e Fars; Atabakan-e Lorestan; Atabakan-e Maraga; Atabakan-e Yazd, [9] does not really denote a modern state concept and the borders of these states contained parts of various areas and they were under the control of Seljuqids (sometimes nominally and sometimes more). For example Maragheh is cnsidered as Azerbaijan by almost all sources but it was not controlled by Illdegizid. But here is my suggested version which I think will satisfy Mardavich as well and it is accurate.

According to the Iranica article, when Nizami was born (1141), the Atabeks were a firm part of the seljuqid empire. an influential family of military slave origin, also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arra@n and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Ata@baks” (ata@baka@n-e a¿záam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), they effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181; in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arra@n and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians, were seized by Ôala@l-al-d^n K¨úa@razmÞa@h in 622/1225. Thus actually the dynasty when Nezami was born starts from rulers of Persian Iraq..

Thus when are talking about when Nezami was born, according to Iranica, they were under firm control of Seljuqs.

a) Nezami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities under the Iledigizd rulers of Arran, most of Azerbaijan and Jebal, part of the the Seljuqid empire[10]. Nizami was orphaned early and was raised by his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar who afforded him an excellent education. I think the word state due to its modern conception might have caused mardavich to re-edit and thus I changed Iledigizd to rulers, since state denotes total independence and these rulers did not control part of Azerbaijan yet controlled parts of Arran and Jabal as well and thus to equate them with Azerbaijani state is really incorrect.

b) Perhaps to make it short and let the users decide about the nature of the rulers and their control, Nezami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities under the Iledigizd rulers[11](also known as Atabakan(chiefs) of Azerbaijan), who were part of the greater Seljuqid empire [12]. Nezami was orphaned early and was raised by his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar who afforded him an excellent education

c) simples form: Nezami was born in Ganja, one of the major cities in the Seljuqid empire. Nezami was orphaned early and was raised by his maternal uncle Khwaja Umar who afforded him an excellent education

Also other friends (Eupator, Mardavich, Tajik) if you don't agree on a thing, then please get involved in the discussions also so everyone is accomodated. Just like everyone was marvelously accomodated with the line: His heritage is widely appreciated and shared by Azerbaijan, Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Nezami is also pronounced as Nizami in western literature.. And what we are trying to do here is to show that Nezami is for everyone, Afghan, Azeri, Kurd, Tajik, Persian..etc (people who are really have the same history).

By the way the main cause of all this was firefox which did not display the image. Thus I thought it was removed and changed back and forth.. I need to improve my wiki technical skills. Let me add that I thought we agreed to put Nizami is also used as a transliteration besides Nezami, but not change the image portion. Not that it matters(we should probably put that also the image is modern portrait since some people might think there was a sketch drawings of Nezami's face). Either way much like the sentence:His heritage is widely appreciated and shared by Azerbaijan, Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan. Nezami is also pronounced as Nizami in western literature., this article can move forward and become a source of bringing people that share in Nezami's heritage closer. --alidoostzadeh 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The wording we agreed to back in June/July '06 and again a few days ago is correct. There is no mistake. The extent of power of the state of Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan is not at question in this article, as the article is not about Atabeks in general, or about the Atabek state of Azerbaijan (there is a separate article for that). It is about Nizami Ganjavi. And Nizami was born, lived, and died in the Azerbaijan Atabek state of Idezids (Ildegoz). In this case Ildegoz (Ildezid) is the name of the dynasty -- just like Safavid, Qajar, Afshar, Pehlevi. So unless we change all pages on Wikipedia to denote the correct name of Iran/Persia through centuries -- such as dowlat-e Qajar or dowlat-e Safavi, we can't expect same from the Azerbaijan Atabek State of Ildegoz. It was Azerbaijan. Also, the exact level of their autonomy or independence to/from Seljuk Empire is not at stake here -- the Atabek Azerbaijan State existed, at first as a dependent, then gradually independent, then #1 in all of empire (i.e., essentially the empire's center) and then again slowly declining into semi-independence before losing all autonomy and ceasing to exist. But the fact remains, that Nizami was born, lived, and died in the Azerbaijan Atabek State of Ildezids. There are more than enough references to support that too. Hence, I see no problem with the wording we agreed to, as it completely corresponds to facts. Yet I see a big problem both in the fact that our agreement was violated by someone over the past months (and no one objected, interestingly), and now when restored, some (all are newcomers who had nothing to do with lengthy discussions) are trying to object on various grounds -- having an axe to grind. I can't accept that, especially from people who don't know much either about Nizami or about Atabeks. --AdilBaguirov 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, this line that Ali has highlighted in bold is indeed important and should be read in full and understood: "also called Ildegozids, ruled parts of Arra@n and Azerbaijan from about 530/1135-36 to 622/1225; as “Great Ata@baks” (ata@baka@n-e a¿záam) of the Saljuq sultans of Persian Iraq (western Iran), they effectively controlled the sultans from 555/1160 to 587/1181; in their third phase they were again local rulers in Arra@n and Azerbaijan until the territories which had not already been lost to the Georgians, were seized by Ôala@l-al-d^n K¨úa@razmÞa@h in 622/1225." This article, about Nizami, does not concern itself with the fact that the Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED THE SULTANAT from 1160 t0 1181 (the beginning of Nizami's greatness). What we care about is that the Great Atabeks of Azerbaijan "ruled parts of Arran and Azerbaijan from about 1135-36 to 1125", which means that all the time that Nizami was born, lived and died, he lived in only ONE STATE -- the Azerbaijani state. And its status vis-a-vis Seljuk Empire is not relevant -- both were Turkic dynasties, there was no fundamental difference between them on the basis of religion, ethnicity or race. Hence, once more, the wording we carefully chose months ago has withstood the test of time. --AdilBaguirov 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil thanks for the comments. Let me look at the history for the wording we agreed upon. About the Seljuqids, they were fundamentally persianized in culture and their ethnicity or race was diluted by interrmarriage with many local Iranian dynasties.. But anyways let me look at the history and see exactly what we wrote and just revert back to that exact wording. Since I consider that agreement to be binding with that regard. --alidoostzadeh 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I think this is what agreed upon: When in the twelfth century the Seljuks extended their control into the region, their provincial governors, virtually autonomous local princes called Atabek, encouraged Persian letters. Ganja was a major city of the Ildegezid Atabek rulers of Azerbaijan.. 30th of June.. I am not going to judge other users knowledge of Nezami or Atabeks, but if they have disagreement with new wordings, they are still bound to follow the old agreements made by different users previously (as I consider myself bound by it). Thus I'll revert back to that exact wording of that article. Note I have been away from wikipedia sometimes for weeks, thus if you find something contradicting the original agreements made, let me know. I think the above is also good enough with regards to this article and interested readers can get more information from the Iranica article (Atabekan Azerbaijan).. I think we should concentrate on what you suggested: nezami's knowledge of many fields, languages and etc. Note according to some sources Ildegizids did not control Maragheh (a major city in Azerbaijan) but yet they controlled Ray (Tehran) and Esfahan for periods.. Outside of this, I would be interested to see any document from that period they ruled for the Atabekan Azerbaijan calling their state Azerbaijan. Since they controlled areas like Jebal, Arran, Esfahan, Ray...etc, I am thinking the term Atabekan-region is a way for scholars to analyze the different atabek dynasties and since their main power-center was parts of Azerbaijan, they became later known as Atabekan Azerbaijan. The article also mentions ruled Arran and Azerbaijan, and if they just called their state Azerbaijan, I do not think the article would mention Arran. --alidoostzadeh 04:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the word state causes too much confusion and injects unnecessary politics since state could also mean country, region, province and etc. Since parts of Azerbaijan was not controlled by these rulers and parts of Esfahan was, calling it the state of Azerbaijan is really not scientific. In Iranica article it is mentioned Arran, Jebal and Azerbaijan. (Iranica article). I think the June 2006 wording is fine. 'When in the twelfth century the Seljuks extended their control into the region, their provincial governors, virtually autonomous local princes called Atabek, encouraged Persian letters. Ganja was a major city of the Ildegezid Atabek rulers of Azerbaijan.. But I think for clarification:Little is known of Nezami's life, except that he spent it in what is now Azerbaijan, we can changed it to:Little is known of Nezami's life, except that he spent it in what is now Ganja in the republic of Azerbaijan. Hope that satisfies everyone?--alidoostzadeh 05:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ali. I think the line we just recently agreed to and used is better, simply because "virtually autonomous local princes" is definitely not a good description, as they were not princes, but essentially kings -- they minted their own money, and had vassals (who could not mint their money and had to accept Azerbaijani money, as the Armenian author's cited article makes very clear), smth which princes can't and don't have. Neither were they local -- nor were they just "virtually autonomous". They were sometimes fully independent (not just autonomous, but independent), and sometimes ruled the whole Seljuk Empire, in fact for 21 years according to Iranica (same or longer than Parthian or Persian Tigran the Great's Greater Armenian empire). That's why they were the Great Atabeks, atabak-i azam (although later it started to mean Prime Minister). Also, for one reason or another, most Western sources spell them as "atabeg". Of course, in reality, it is "atabey"/"atabay". We should choose whether to use atabek or atabeg, as the most popular choices.

Also, just because a few towns were not at some point controlled, doesn't take away from a state. Russia didn't and doesn't control Chechnya, Georgia doesn't control Abkhazia and S.Ossetia, Azerbaijan -- NK, China -- Taiwan and until recently Hong Kong, Iran some islands in the Persian Gulf, Lebanon bunch of its territories, Argentina the Folklends, etc. The Atabek state of Azerbaijan was a state. State with its own ruler, money, laws, army, recognition, etc. Of course at times there were not fully independent, and at times they were -- but they were still a state. But we are making it very clear -- it was a part of Seljuk empire all that time, and we don't make exceptions for that, there is no politicizing. I don't think any reader would misunderstand, as it makes it abundantly clear that no matter how independent, it was still a part of Seljuk empire. Just like Tatarstan Republic, despite having its own Constitution, President, Parliament, foreign trade representations, etc., are still very much a constituent part of the Russian Federation, or bunch of US or UK dependent territories (perhaps all not an exact equivalent, but shows that the concept of state is flexible enough to allow such arrangements). Of course, as I noted, the Azerbaijani Atabeks were the original and the Great Atabeks -- they were actually the "father - bey's" to the infant sultans, so they had effective control and say over the whole empire.

I can't promise right now, but I will try to get any additional references and if possible, documents or chronicles, about Atabeks of Azerbaijan. But I would need at least a month for that. Obviously, much of documents have either not survived, or have barely been catalogized. In Azerbaijan -- like in Iran, etc., -- many archival documents have still not been properly cataloged. This will of course change with time -- provided the documents will survive years of neglect -- but that's unfortunately beyond our control, as neither of us are archival workers, and I am pretty sure neither government of Iran or Azerbaijan spends enough of (oil) money on its archives (incl. preservation) and research (and publication). Best, --AdilBaguirov 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You and Ali can not just make agreements as there are other users. If Ali is correct that the state encompassed from Isfahan, Tehran, Arran and Azerbaijan, then it was larger than Azerbaijan. So lets keep politics out. --Mardavich 06:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mardavich, I'll ask your opinion next time, but I think you should participate directly. Same with Eupator, GM and etc, so no one is dissatified. Adil I think the word state has different meanings. Chechnya is a state of Russia (recognized as such), but Esfahan or Tehran are not really state of Azerbaijan and never have been. As per documents, actually a great one exists. That is Nezami Ganjavi (although in poetic praise) in Khusraw o Shirin. شکارستان او ابخاز و دربند شبیخونش به خوارزم و سمرقند ز گنجه فتح خوزستان که کرده است؟ ز عمان تا به اصفاهان که خورده است؟

Note he mentions from Ganja to capturing Khuzestan and from Oman to Esfahan as as well Abkhazia and Darband as the domain of the Atabek. Even mentions his influence in Khwarazm and Samarqand or uses the Persian word Shabikhun (suprise attack by night).. Forgetting about Darband, Ganja..Abkhazia, Esfahan , Khuzestan were not really part of any Azerbaijan and thus with sucha wide territory, his state would not be limited to what is considered an Azerbaijani state (what is known as Azerbaijan and also the republic of azerbaijan). Note Chechnya is considered part of Russia even if it is controlled by them or not. That is the reason why the word state is problematic since an Azerbaijani state could either mean two things: 1) they controlled only Azerbaijan. 2) They were ethnically Azerbaijanis although according to Iranica they were Kipchaks. (Much like Parthians are not Persians). But I have never heared of say Esfahan being considered part of Azerbaijan or part of the state of Azerbaijan. Just like Azerbaijanis would object for example to consider Azerbaijan a state of say Tehran. Thus the territory of the Atabek was much larger than Azerbaijan (though it didn't compromise all parts of Azerbaijan) and it expanded and contracted. I think since users eupator(an Armenian) and mardavich(an Azerbaijani himself) object to the word 'state' and since the Iranica article does not mention state, I think my suggestion above is fine. The concept of state of azerbaijan is something that exists in the modern era and I would even say so is the state of Iran. Since the Qajars and Safavids were really an Iranian empire. Official documents from their own time that Atabekan Azerbaijan considered their state to be called Azerbaijan probably does not exist since they were obviously interested in Esfahan, Ray, Abkhazia, Arran..etc and did not probably consider these as Azerbaijan. Indeed they were thinking big, since they were interested by the empire. Thus I think we need to word it again and the last thing we need is one involving Armenians and Azerbaijanis or Azerbaijani Iranian and Republic of Azerbaijan Azerbaijanis disputing the word state since those details are not relavent to a Nezami article Thus the word Atabek/Atabak state of Azerbaijan should be changed to Little is known of Nezami's life, except that he spent it in Ganja, which was the domain of the Ildegezid Atabekan-i-Azerbaijan (or pronounced like Iranica Atabakan) (Iranica link) part of the Seljuqid empire. . Also actually the word bag is probably more ancient. Some sources say the Slavic Bogu and Old Persian Baga entered Turkish via Soghdian. Others consider the Turkish word to have formed independtly. Either way I think pronounciations should be kept as how the chronicles use these terms. (atabekan) اتابکان (alef-teh-alef-beh-kaaf-alef-noon) (Atabekan, Atabakan). --alidoostzadeh 07:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, many states expand by occupying territories not part of them -- Russia is one such example, not to mention UK, Spain, Portugal, France, Holland, and, well, Iran -- Caucasus, and specifically such regions as Shirvan, Arran, Kakhetia, etc., are distinct, yet neither you, nor me, nor others have a problem calling them part of Iran when they indeed were so. Yet, none of those regions are traditional Iran, which is restricted to south of Araxes. Hence, you are very correct about Esfahan and other cities and regions, as they are not part of traditional Azerbaijan, but I doubt this would confuse and otherwise have relevance in an Nizami article. People can go on and read more history if they are interested in either Seljuk Empire or the Atabek State of Azerbaijan, or atabeks in general and atabekdoms in other regions, like Luristan. Of all other synonymous terms for "state", none are better suited: "big brother, body politic, commonwealth, community, country, federation, kingdom, land, nation, republic, sovereignty, territory, union". Also, what made the Great Atabeks special is that they were only nominally part of Seljuk Empire, in fact, sometimes it is unclear, who was part of whom. --AdilBaguirov 02:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil it is true that the Atabekan had their power based in Azerbaijan and/or Arran (just using these names based on the Iranica article). But whereas Iran has been called Iran by the state itself (Sassanid, Safavid..) and contained regions and provinces, I have not seen any proof that the Atabekan called their state Azerbaijan. Either Azerbaijan was a province and then Esfahan , Tehran, Arran becomes other provinces or Azerbaijan was a state and then Esfahan, Tehran, Arran become provinces of Azerbaijan. I do not think the Atabekan called their whole land as Azerbaijan. Iran is actually not a particular region, but the whole that encompasses the provinces. For example Azerbaijan is part of the Iranian state during say the Sassanids. But to say Esfahan region of Iran was part of the state of Azerbaijan simply needs sources from the era of the Atabeks. The relationship between say Tehran the capital and province, and Azerbaijan during the Qajar is the relationship between two states. The Qajars did not consider their state to be called Tehran. Atabekan also had several provincess and their capitcal was Arran and Azerbaijan. Note the defintion of a state[13] which is too many to count. That is why words like region or Atabekan-e-Azarbaijan rulers are better. By the way since you talked about astronomy and etc. let me mention an old manuscript recently discovered from Tabriz about 100 years after the time of Nezami. [14]. Note the sciences mentioned in the manuscript which is mind-boggling. According to some scholars this manuscript is one of the 10 most important Persian manuscripts of all time. From what I have read, there is information about Qatran and I would not be suprised if there are also some information on other poets like Nezami. --alidoostzadeh 03:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to quote Nezami again since he is a source from that era and since the article is about him, we can get an idea of what he considered the domain of the kings he has praised. In praise of Atabek Shams ad-din Abu Ja'far Muhammad in Khusraw o Shirin: در آن بخشش که رحمت عام کردند دو صاحب را محمد نام کردند یکی ختم نبوت گشته ذاتش یکی ختم ممالک بر حیاتش یکی برج عرب را تا ابد ماه یکی ملک عجم را جادوان شاه

He explicity says Shams ad-din is the Shah of Mulk-e-Ajam (land of Ajam or in another words Persia).

In his praise of Ala' ad-din Korpe Arsalan, dedicated to this ruler of Maragheh, Nezami says: همه عالم تن است و ایران دل نیست گوینده زین قیاس خجل چونکه ایران دل زمین باشد دل ز تن به بود یقین باشد زان ولایت که مهرتران دارند بهترین جای بهتران دارند.

Thus this one directly references Iran (all the world is body, Iran is its heart).

In his praise of Shervanshah, Nezami says: خاصه ملکی چو شاه شروان شروان چه، که شهریار ایران (khaaseh (specially) a king like the Shah of Shervan. What's Shervan! (Sehrvan Cheh!) He is the Shahriyaar of Iran.

Thus I do not see Nezami referring to any of the kings as the king of the state of Azerbaijan. Thus we are better really to concentrate on concepts like astronomy, astrology, music and Nezami's vast knowledge. --alidoostzadeh 19:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, again, thanks for your contribution, I actually greatly appreciate it. But I am surprized you don't see the peculiarity of the situation, which you have greatly underscored. So from history we know that the Azerbaijani Great Atabeks's powerbase and main land was what is known as Azerbaijan, which included Arran region (by then it referred only to the land between Kura and Araxes). And we also know that they ruled vast territories, in fact, being more powerful than the Sultan himself, they sometimes essentially ruled all of Seljuk Empire, including pretty much all of Iran. Yet no scholar, no historian, and certainly on Azerbaijani, would call them "shah's of Iran".

Second, Nizami calls him "shah". Aside from poetics, and taking into account that unlike with Shirvanshah and Korpa Aslan, it was actually well deserved, a shah is not just a ruler, he is the supreme ruler or at least a very powerful or mostly independent ruler. And such rulers preside over many people and territories, and have their country called something, they do have a state structure. Moreover, as we know, he minted his own money, and that money was used by his vassal rulers too. Thus, calling him just a ruler, and a ruler of Azerbaijan, does not do justice or solve the problem. He was a ruler of VAST territories, but his powerbase and his state was still just Azerbaijan (even though it clearly included both north and south of Araxes). Much smaller, more vassalic, and less relevant rulers and states are easily labeled as a "state", hence this case should not create opposition. the Great Atabeks were not just some dudes from the street, but were supreme rulers with vassal rulers, their own internationally-recognized money, and even khutba read everyday in Baghdad by the khaliph. This would not happen for just some strongman, some ambiguous "ruler". --AdilBaguirov 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil I do not see it any differently. Qajars ruled from Tehran, which is one of their provinces and their base, but they called their territory Iran. Here I see Nezami calling the territory Molk-e-Ajam. Also the atabek state did not include all of Azerbaijan(Maraghe) nor does it include Shervan. Nezami actually calls him king of Molk-e-Ajam where Molk-e-Ajam is usually another name for Iran in Arabic sources. I do not see Nezami in any of his introductions refer to an state by the name Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan as a name of a state is new concept (with the republic of Azerbaijan) and of course there is Median atrapatekan but that was a kingdom itself, not a state. Kingdom and empires are different from state concepts. At the time of Nezami the medes were long forgotten. As I said if you have any documents from that era of the reign of Atabeks where they said they are "the ruler of the country of Azerbaijan" then it is valid and the country of Azerbaijan includes Esfahan, Tehran.. fine. Else there is difference of opinion which is really more to do with the nature of Atabekan state of Azerbaijan. It is not related to Nezami Ganjavi and also I do not see any support that Iranica uses the term either and they even mention Azerbaijan, Jebal and Arran where Azerbaijan was the base. Similar to Qajars who had Tehran as their base but ruled Azerbaijan. --alidoostzadeh 03:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, the base of Qajar's was Azerbaijan too, in fact, unlike the Afshars and Safavids, Qajar's had a traditionally very strong presence in Ganja and Karabakh. Also, Shirvan at times accepted the nominal suzeiranty of the Atabeks, and I am pretty sure even more so was true of Maragha at times. Qajar's too did not control all of Iranian homeland at times, not to mention other lands, such as Caucasus, so permanent control over all territories cannot be considered as an objective requirement. --AdilBaguirov 05:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil, If the base of Qajars was Azerbaijan, they still called their country Iran (during contraction and expansion) and not Azerbaijan. But the base of Qajars was actually Astar-abaad (Gorgan in Mazandaran province) and not Azerbaijan and they did not call their country as Astarabad or Mazandaran either. Qajars were strong in Azerbaijan , but they were strong in Arak and Tehran and Khorasan and etc. as well. Tabriz though was their second most important city after the capital Tehran. On a side note, Afsharids (Nader Shah) as also from Khorasan[15]. Amongst the Safavids, Afshars and Qajars, only Safavid had their base in Ardabil/Gilan, but all of them called the country Iran. The point is the base of the power is not necessarily the name of the country. Adil, we are going back and forth on this issue. All that is required is for Nezami to mention the name of the country as Azerbaijan (like Shapur does with Iranshahr) and then say Esfahan and Jebbal and Arran..were provinces. Nezami but considers Jahan Pahlavan as the Shah-e- Molk-e- Ajam, King of the land of Ajam. The correct thing would be then that Nezami lived in the semi-independent Kingdom of Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan. Note the current version: Ganja was a major city of the Ildegezid Atabek rulers of Azerbaijan. But if had to be specific, Atabeks also ruled Arran, Jebal and etc. Thus I myself am not currently satisfied with the wording, but since the wikipedians like Tajik, GM, you , me, Eupator and others made an agreement, then I accept the current wording. Thus I suggest we move on astronomy and other topics. By the way are the scholars in the republic of Azerbaijan aware of Safina-e-Tabrizi? It has many of the sciences of the era and probably gives a good glimpse of the state of astronomy and other similar sciences at that time. I would assume if they knew about such a work, they would be really proud of it. --alidoostzadeh 05:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomy and other sciences

Friends (Adil, Eupator, Mardavich,..), I found a quote from Jerome Clinton in the book The poetry of Nizami Ganjavi, knowledge love and rethoric (pg 3): He displays in his poetry an impressive familiarity with all branches of learning of his day -- philosophy, poetry, geometry, astronomy, geography,history, music, architecture, jurisprudence and logic. Prof. Clinton recently passed away but he was part of the Iranian studies of Princeton University and has translated lots of Persian poetry. I personally am impressed by Nezami's knowledge of music (See Chapter 8 of the same book) which I did some research on in Khusraw o Shirin myself. Classical middle-eastern music (the Azeri form being Mugham) and the Persian form (Radif) all have the same root actually and many have hypothesized that it started with barbad although it is hard to prove. Anyways it would be good to have a detail article say on Nezami and astronomy linked to the article. --alidoostzadeh 01:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Perhaps this quote you have should already be inserted or otherwise have a link to prof. Clinton. I will try to bring some more quotes from other sources too, but the book on astronomy, written in Soviet times, won't be in my possession for a few months. There an actual astronomer reviews Nizami's knowledge and is very impressed. --AdilBaguirov 12:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll insert that in along with some stuff about music. About Atabekan, I put Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan so everyone is happy. --alidoostzadeh 13:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] on Azerbaijan national academic of sciences

Although the Azerbaijan national academic of sciences and Nezami Museum are 20th century phenomenons not related to Nezami who physically left this world in 1209, I had a problem with the link here:[16]. Investigation of history and theoretical problems of Medieval Azerbaijan Literature, monographs dedicated to the classics of Azerbaijan Literature (Nizami, Nasimi, Fizuli, Vagif, etc.). My concern is not about Nizami's ethnic background just like Russians do not care about Pushkins background, but Nizami did not write in Azerbaijani language to be considered part of Azerbaijani literature (by standard definition that the language of the literature becomes name of the literature). Fizuli who is from Iraq wrote in Persian, Arabic and Azerbaijani and thus he contributed to Persian, Arabic and Azerbaijani literature. Note the standard definition of Azerbaijani literature given by Iranica as well(Gerhad Doefer): The oldest poet of Azeri literature known so far (and indubitably of Azeri, not East Anatolian or Khorasani, origin) is Emad-al-din Nasimi (about 1369 – 1404, q.v.). Other important Azeri poets were Shah Esma'il Safawi "Khata'i" (1487 – 1524) and Fozuli (about 1494 – 1556,q.v.), an outstanding Azeri poet. (Encyclopedia Iranica, article on Azeri Turkish by G. Doerfer, pp. 255-258). Thus I think we should keep the article the way it is. Many Persians have contributed to Arabic/Arab literature only. ( I was going to say Hallaj but he has couple of Persian poems according to some sources). Note I have done a lot to accomadate everyone here and I think the current article is balanced. I will also e-mail Surena as well so that he does not put his insertions. In the end this was a compromised article and I think adding any new materials should be discussed..... The last thing we need is an embarrasing article (like Safavids). . --alidoostzadeh 02:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have sent a separate e-mail to user Surena also about this entry as well. I request all users to discuss in the talk page before editing. --alidoostzadeh 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, first off, Azerbaijani literature is what Azerbaijani people themselves state, not what Iranica, or you and me, say. Secondly, readers certainly have the right to know if any major monument, street, city, island, institution, etc., are named after the "hero" of our article. As such, both those institutions qualify. Also, the Academy of Science is a creation of the 20th century, but not science and not scientific research that has been carried out, including in the region, for centuries. Likewise, Fuzuli is an Azerbiajani poet, who also greatly contributed to all Turkic literature, as well as Persian and Arabic. Meanwhile, Nizami is an Azerbaijani poet not because of his writing in any given language, but because he was from Azerbaijan, and he is cherished as such as by all Azerbaijanis, is prominently featured in all curricullum and publications. There are many Azerbaijanis who wrote in Arabic only too, and many who wrote in Russian or even only in German too -- so Nizami (or Khaqani, Gatran, etc) are certainly not alone. All relevant articles, such as this one, clearly denotes the LANGUAGE in which the poet wrote and that he has made an outstanding contribution to the Persian literary tradition and language. So it's not clear why would any institute named after Nizami be problematic to you -- what's next, you don't like some staffer or janitor working in the institute, and thus try to remove references to it? But the institute still exists, still carries out its research, still publishes and functions, organizes conferences (just recently one in Europe), etc. So those NPOV simple URLs should stay. --AdilBaguirov 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil I did not remove a reference from what we agreed upon back 5-6 months ago. So this is a recent matter which I believe should be discussed before insertion. What a segment of Azerbaijani people or for that matter Iranian people say is not necessarily the academic criterion and basis in the Western World . Literature of a language is the literature of that language. What a Turkologist like Doefer says for example has more weight even if for example 99% of Iranians or Azerbaijanis say something else. Similarly as you mentioned what me and you say is not relavent either. Thus I am going by academic criterion of what constitutes Azerbaijani literature (simply what is written in Azerbaijani language). Being from Azerbaijan or Arran is a geographical location and there have been many Kurds, Persians, Armenians, Albanians and etc. from that area as well of course Turkic speakers. One of the writers you named before was for example Masud ibn Namdar which I have done some research on recently and Minorsky gives his ethncity as Kurdish. Now I am not saying Minorsky is right or wrong. But by any definition, Namdar's work would constitute Arabic literature not Azerbaijani or Iranian (since Azerbaijan was part of Iran many times and at least Nezami refers to three different kings as kings of Iran) or Kurdish literature. Just like Nezami is considered in Azerbaijan as part of Azerbaijan's literature in Iran it is considered as part of Iran's literature. Perhaps in Tajikistan they say something else. Who knows maybe in Kurdistan they will say something else since he was raised by his maternal uncle. In the end he is academically considered part of Persian literature because that is the language he wrote in irregardless of his ethnic backround and at that time there was no concept of Azerbaijani or Iranian nationality but simply there was a Muslim Ummah where many kings wanted to control and expand their influence. Thus modern politics has no bearing on the time of Nezami. There was an Iran geographically and Azerbaijan geographically which was considered part of Iran geographically by many authors of that time, both names being left over from Sassanid era, but there was no nationality or modern state concepts. Thus any link to the websites of republic of Azerbaijan or Iran with this regard compromises the neutral point of view reached. Let me ask you a question, is Armenian manuscript from Azerbaijan (say from an armenian poet 400 years ago or writer from NK or Baku or..) considered Armenian literature or Azerbaijani literature? (hypothetical question). Fizuli was from Baghdad and yet the author of that link does not consider geography as the necessary criterion. Thus my feeling is that the author is not talking about geographical location but is simply trying to say Nezami did not write in Persian but wrote in Azerbaijani. That is my viewpoint of the link. For example here is a link from CAIS [17] run by affiliated to scholars of SOAS. I am sure some users will object to the link since it calls Nezami Ganjavi an Iranian poet. I personally think the article is balanced as it is. The opinion of the population of Iran or republic of Azerbaijan is POV and popular opinion can not define scientific terms. For example the popular opinion in some Arab countries is that Salladin was an Arab. Thus popular opinion by itself can not define historical facts. That goes for Iranian, Arab, Azerbaijani popular opinions.. We also have dozens of Nezami streets in Iran. I am sure some exists in Afghanistan as well. I believe the current version reflects that people of Azerbaijan (note I put it first as somebody requested :) ), Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and etc. all share in nezami's heritage. (Kurds should have been mentioned as well). We did not say he belonged to which country's linterature (all these countries were created after Nezami) and everyone is happy as it is. But I am convinced if we add too many links from Iran or Azerbaijan republic of Tajikistan..that have nothing really to do with Nezami's thoughts. I think we should concentrate on adding more information on Nezami Ganjavi himself instead of peripheral information. For example on music, astronomy, romantic poetry and etc. Even with this regard I would put it in the talk page first for discussion so that everyone is satisfied . That is the correct thing to do by everyone. --alidoostzadeh 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Khoikhoi has added a wiki link for Nezami museum. Thus that deserves its own article anyways since it is not related to the biography and life and works of Nezami. I think the current text is fine (if any edits are made everyone should be happy). Any further information on the museum or Azerbaijani academy of science should be put in that relavent wiki article. --alidoostzadeh 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I think I understand what you mean and what your concerns are, but respectfully disagree on some points. To begin with, I know you keep your word, and as I said before I am not blaming you for any changes that have occured despite our agreement. Likewise, I keep my word too, and consider anything unlike this as unworthy and unmanly. Then, to answer your hypothetical question, the Armenian poet in Azerbaijan would unequivocally belong to Armenians if he wrote in Armenian, since Armenians are a well-defined and identified nationality and have their nation-state. However, had that ethnic Armenian, who would have been born, lived, and died, in Azerbaijan (let's say Ganja) and wrote in any of the prevalent languages of Azerbaijan at the time, he should be shared equally by both Armenia and Azerbaijan. (indeed, we have some ashugs like that, who are probably better known to Azerbaijanis than to Armenians). Just like Armenians are proud and list William Saroyan as an (ethnic) Armenian or "Armenian-American" writer, despite him never living in or visiting Armenia, and writing all in English. I am not sure who would be a good example for Iranians, although again, let's take ethnic Azerbaijani poet Shahriyar from Tabriz. He is of course Iranian, but he is equally Azerbaijani -- and even though he was not born, nor educated, nor lived in Azerbaijan (Republic), that Republic has full right to consider him as its own, too, and include him in its lists, and curricullums (of course, as long as its done fairly, i.e., not denying the other side its share). Similarly, both Nabokov and Sikorsky became very prominent in America, yet that does not deny the right of Russian people, and Russia, to be proud of their compatriots, and include them in whatever lists of famous writers and engineers they want.

Back to Azerbaijan example -- you and other Iranians keep telling me and other Azerbaijanis that we are Iranian somehow too, we were simply Turkified later, and that our ancient language, "Azari", was Iranian and perhaps close to Persian. If this is so, and apparently overwhelming majority of Iranians believes in this theory, then clearly it brings Nizami fully into the domain of Azerbaijan by removing the only major "obstacle", which is language. I mean, we can't have it both ways -- you can't seriously believe and claim that Azari language was Iranian, that all or nearly all Azerbaijanis are originally Iranian, and yet then deny Nizami on a technicality such as not writing (or rather, not preserving) in Turki (which he clearly knew, and must have dedicated some short poems to his uneducated former slave wife -- and it's not reflected in the article right now).

Moreover, just like the concept of "Iranians", the concept of "Azerbaijanis" has become self-sustaining and inclusive since the 20th century. Which means that Talysh, Tats, Kurds from among the Iranic population, the Jews and Arabs from among the Semitic population, and Lezgi, Tsakhur, etc., are all Azerbaijani equally with any Turkic people of Oghuz or Kipchak stock, as long as they live in Azerbaijan, and personally do not oppose this on individual level. Hence, Minorsky could have been right about Namdar being Kurd (where did he say that, btw?) but Namdar didn't contribute much to Kurdish culture, history, etc. He is not even mentioned by them anywhere. Unlike Azerbaijanis, who mention him in books and even in encyclopedia. (which is true of many other Kurds, who made outstanding contributions to Azerbaijan, including formation and defense of ADR). Clearly, Nizami did more to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis, than he did for Tajiks and Tajikistan, or Afghans and Afghanistan, or Persians and Persia (Fars region).

Thus, I disagree that any one foreign scholar can override what native scholars and entire nation thinks. Indeed, it's actually funny and ironic, because Wikipedia then becomes "virtual" in the sense of not being real. But we know that its objecive is to reflect all facts, including those on the ground. And the facts stand that Nizami is a pretty important man to everyone, from babies to white-bearded men in Azerbaijan, and he is clearly more important and cherished to us than to anyone one else. At the same time, no one denies all what is written in our article -- as I told you before months ago, his Kurdish mother, his Persian language writing, his contribution to Persian literature was/is never concealed and indeed was publicised by all scholars. Thus, the Iranian side, is not and should not get offended -- no one changes any facts that his Khamse is in Dari, and not Turki.

On Fuzuli, him being recognized as Azerbaijani is not only because he wrote in distinct Azerbaijani Turki, and that he considered Turki his native, and like Navoi, was proud to be writing in it and polishing it, but his father was from Bayat tribe from Azerbaijan, roughly from the area of Karabakh. Also, even Turks recognize him as Azerbaijani (e.g., I have a book published in Turkey, with President Demirel recognizing it), despite some tendencies to simply declare such poets as Turkic or in his case Turcoman (whose language is identical with Azerbaijani, and not Turkish, probably because they are descendants of Qizilbash).

Anyhow, creating a special page for the Nizami Museum is not a good idea, I think. Likewise, same with Nizami Institute. Two simple links are better than having two special pages filled with essentially the same info AND obviously featuring a link (URL) to that same museum and institute. Why create special pages for something which has a fairly comprehensive website of its own and which by definition is simply hard to replicate in a foreign encyclopedia as there are simply not enough additional published materials that can be cited? Right now, I view that this concern should be viewed separate from the issue of literature per se, to which I promise to return, because limiting Azerbaijani literature only to Turkic-language writers and poets is unfair and not very logical, not to mention that disagrees with both native tradition and scholarship, and what has been written and printed in other countries. --AdilBaguirov 06:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Adil I thank you also for keeping your word. That is why I welcomed any discussion before insertion and note I hold myself also to discussion before insertion. First on the on the museums actually wikipedia has many small links. I believe it deserves a link given other wikipedia entries. Many museums currently have a Wikipedia entry. Some extremely short (about two sentences) [18] [19]. Surely one can write more than two sentences about the Nezami museum. (Just mentioning the history and location). Thus I think providing the wikipedia link is the best way and I think Khoikhoi figured that out. Also thanks for answering my question. I think the comparison with Shahriyar is not a good one as you mentioned. Since Iranian nationality existed during the era of Shahryar and of course so did a clear concept of Azerbaijani ethnicity. Of course by the same token that Shahryar wrote in Azerbaijani, Nezami would also be considered part of Iranian literature by writing in Persian. I was not able to satisfactorily understand your answer to my hypothetical question. Armenian of course is prevalent or sizeable language in the caucus, but it is not an Islamic language. If Armenians calls someone an Armenian-American writer is fine because American nationality and citizenship is defined at the time of that Armenian writer. Similarly with any Iranian or Azerbaijani or Tajik American writer. You said: ‘’ Clearly, Nizami did more to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis, than he did for Tajiks and Tajikistan, or Afghans and Afghanistan, or Persians and Persia (Fars region).’’. I disagree with this, but my point was not that. The concept of Tajik, Afghan, Iranian, Azerbaijani nationalities did not exist back then and thus Nezam or Ferdowsi or Sa’adi can be considered Persian literature. Some of these ethnicities or supra-ethnicities might have existed, but nationality based on statehood did not.

Now as to what Nezami Ganjavi did more for. We are injecting of course our personal views and you will not agree with me and I will not agree with you on this. That is why we said he belongs to the heritage of four countries and this was a huge step in the article which I believe Nezami himself would have wanted. Personally from my viewpoint though, Nezami Ganjavi has 30,000+ verses in Persian language and a Tajik person in Dushanbeh can understand him but an Azerbaijani or Lezgi or Russian from the republic of Azerbaijan does not know his language. 10,000 years from now there might not be a Persian or Turkic speaker and everyone could be speaking Chinese or English (perhaps 200 years from now). Thus Nezami’s currently living language could die and simply a person at that time has to learn Persian (if technology permits) to understand him. A poet’s most important legacy is simply the literature he left and it really finds relevance when a person can understand the poet’s language since I can assure anyone that unlike Khayyam, Nezami’s very colorful poetry can not be translated as his play with words is just too entangled with the language. His stories as a whole can be translated but the intricacies of each verse can not. I respect Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan’s statehood as well as of course Iran’s statehood, but we can not call Nezami Tajik or Azeri or Afghan or Iranian literature if we are referring to a state. Right now there is a battle between Rumi as well and Afghans call him Afghan poet because he was born in Afghanistan, Iranians call him Iranian and Turkey claims him as one of their own. In the end the work he has left us puts him in the category of Persian literature. Thus he like Nezami simply contributed to Persian literature. َAccording to Nezami; «یادگاری کز آدمی‌زاد است

سخن است آن‌، دگر همه باد است»

Yadegari kaz Adamizaadast Sokhan ast An, degar hameh baadast (what is left from maknind is words of wisdom, the rest is wind). Thus ethnic background or geographical location (all were the same connected lands and kingdoms) is not as important in my opinion as the language that the poet is organically tied to.

Now you are saying Persian literature from the classical period in what is now the republic of Azerbaijan is a subset of Azerbaijani literature. Although this might be a popular definition in Azerbaijan, it would not be too popular definition in Iran or in circles of academia. It is true that wikipedia is a popular encyclopedia with regards to everyone being able to edit, but when it comes to definition of terms, usually scholarly consensus on what constitutes a literature of a language is the norm. Given the fact that there are more Azerbaijans in Iran than the republic of Azerbaijan, by similar logic one can say that Bakhtiar Vahabazadeh (I was going to say Fizuli but he wrote in three) and every single azeri poet is Iranian literature. But that is not true with say Bakhtiar Vahabzdeh even though similar cliams can be made that Azerbaijani republic is part of Iran , more Azerbaijanis live in Iran then Azerbaijan and etc.. These are places that definitions become overlapping or convoluted. Thus one of the primary reason to define a literature with the language and not a geographical region (which in this case I would argue that we should take Iran when it was to its largest extent). Thus popular definition by common folks is not the correct definition. My suggestion for such authors is simply to use: Persian literature from Azerbaijan. This way Persian literature is not confused with the more widely accepted term Azerbaijani (which they mean a Turkic language) literature. Or Armenian literature from Azerbaijan or Arabic literature from Iran.

As per Azerbaijanis I said they are mainly Turkified Iranian-speakers based on both genetic and linguistic evidence (lack of vowel harmony for example), but unfortunately as long as I see the republic of Azerbaijan identity itself solely with Turkic world and hear comments like those of Elchibey’s (or what you said is romantic pan-turkism), then there is really a major obstacle to for example say Zarathustra or Babak Khorramdin or Rostam Farrokhzad were Azerbaijanis. Since the definition most associated with Azerbaijani in the West and the republic of Azerbaijan is Azerbaijani Turkish speakers and not conglomerates of Iranic, Turkic, Albanian elements. Once the later definition becomes clear then there won’t be any dispute on many of these issues. But when I see some Azeri paper refer to Shahnameh as a foreign story (despite three of Nezami’s stories being directly from the Shahname and he menioning Kawa several times) and embrace KorOghlu fully, then I am dismayed. I have also seen some examples where Azerbaijani republic users also do not respect Iranian nationality and even compare it to soviet identity and say Safavids did not create an Iranian identity whereas a state by definition creates a national identity (American identity despite thousands of ethnic groups) and thus an Iranian national identity at least existed from Safavid era.

On the issue of Nezami and Qipchaqi or Azeri poetry. I do no believe Nezami wrote any poetry in Qipchaqi for his Qipchaq wife and most likely his Qipchaq wife learned the language of Nezami’s poetry given Nezami’s strong emphasis on education. Neither did he write any Kurdish poetry in front of Khwajah Umar. I do not think Nezami wrote a single verse in Kurdish or Qipchaq. My indication of this is the fact Nezami sends his son to the Shirvanshah’s court and advises them (Shirvanshah’s son as well) to read the Shahnameh and has advised him in Persian. He could have easily advised him in any language, and usually the son learns the language of their mother. Also he probably would have sent him to the court of one of the Turkic princes although these princes themselves were highly Persianized in manner and speech. Also simply one can be illiterate and learn another language well enough to communicate like many of the Turkic rulers. In Iran the literacy rate now is around 80% (lower for Women) but 95%+ of the population understands Persian. Also women that were given as gifts by rulers might have been educated in different arts besides their natural beauty. On the other hand there was no need at that time for women to be communicate with perfect grammar and syntax. Simply until there is such a Turkic or Kurdish specimen, we would never know and despite there being Qipchaqs including the ruler Atabek Shams ad-din Jahan Pahlavan, so far there has not been a single line of any authentically confirmed Turkic or Kurdish poetry from that period not just by Nezami but any poet from his era and location. We do not know the ethnic background of his two other wives either (and if we go by hypothesis one can say one of them might have been say Georgian convert to Islam and etc..) but again there is no indication Nezami wrote in their language. Indeed the Seljuq Sultans or Atabekan-e-Azerbaijan would certainly have supported any sort of Turkic poetry in Azerbaijan had such a poetic tradition existed at that time much like the Teymurids and Safavids for example who supported Turkish alongside Persian. Similarly with the Shaddadid Kurds which there is a not a single verse of Kurdish from their era. For stating any historical fact as certain fact, direct proof (like a authentic sample) would be necessary. Indict proof from medieval recital of poets life although not necessarily sufficient, but in this case we do not have one shred of evidence to discuss it. For example Alishehr Navai mentions Turkish poets and Persian poets (and we can Turkish writing and Persian writing) and Nezami is group with Persian writing (like Hafez, Ferdowsi..). Interestingly enough he mentions Nezami’s Ghazals and thus one can perhaps surmise that these Ghazal’s were largely intact at that time and not scattered. Even indirect proof like another poet living in the same era producing in Kurdish or Qipchaqi or Azeri would provide at least some sort of evidence (although not conclusive) for the existence of such a literarily tradition. To go from a hypothesis to proof (and I am actually Mathematician) simply needs a direct proof else one cay say perhaps, maybe, likely.,possibly.

About Namdar. How do we know Kurds in Iraq do not study him? Also by mentioning him in school books does it really make him part of Azerbaijan literature. What about Kurdish literature or Iranian literature (if we determine this term as ethnically or geographically when Iran was larger like the Safavid era) or etc. These becomes the topic of nationalists debates which in the end is not suitable for wikipedia. By clear definition, t Namdar wrote in Arabic, he is considered part of Arabic literature unequivocally. Perhaps Arabic literature from the geographical region of Azerbaijan (very clear term). For all practical purposes he enriched Arabic language and culture. BTW the information from Minorsky is found in his book: Studies in Caucasian history. It is in the index section where he has a paragraph about Nezami’s Kurdish mother, Masud ibn Namdar direct claim on being Kurd and Kurds of Arran and Ganjah as well 24 tribes of Kurds in the caucus based on the Sharafnameh. It probably contains the most detailed article on the Shaddadid's produced so far. It is always good to see how another person might view these issues and that is when there is conflicting views, we all decided to put Nezami's shared heritage although I should have mentioned Kurds also. Back to the issue at hand, given the fact that there are dozens of links for museums that have only one or two lines, it would be good introduce this museum in its own separate link. Just writing about its history and location easily makes it longer than some of the other Wikipedia entries. Thus I support’s Khoikhoi’s suggestion with this regard. About the languages Nezami spoke, Arabic and Persian are certain. Pahlavi mentioned by Nezami is a maybe. The reason is that Pahlavi has never been used as a religion but a language. Also Vis o Ramin which was a pre-Islamic era story was written in Pahlavi and thus the three pre-Islamic stories of Nezami might have had manuscripts. Thus that is a perhaps. Hebrew and Greek or some other Christian language is a possibility. Kurdish (his mother or uncle who raised him) or Qipchaqi (his first wife) are hypothetical since we do not posses any actual specimen and thus fall in the category of maybe. Without getting into details, the article mentions his full acquaintance with: oral and written popular and local tradition which actually covers a lot without getting into detail guesswork (i.e. Nasrani being Syriac or Armani or Greek or just translation of Christian texts into Arabic/Persian or Tabari being Tabari dialect or historian?).. --alidoostzadeh 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persian name

There is no reason to have his name written in Azari language. He was not Azarbaijani. All of Nezami's work was Persian. He did not even have any literature in Azari. Nizami is a Persian poet so I will remove the irrelevent information.74.108.210.134 00:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We have made a compromise on all issues. Nezami as we mentioned is shared by 4 countries and thus three of those countries speak Persian and one speaks mainly Azeri. Thus we should have both names. So I have r.v.'ed you. --alidoostzadeh 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] category of poets

The page had the Iranian poets category already, and recently someone added Persian poets as well. I added then Azerbaijani poets category as well. --adil 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually Persian poet was long there. This has to do with composing Persian poetry not ethnicity. Note here: [[20]]. List of poets who have written in Persian language. Persian poet is an accurate description. Iranian, Azerbaijani poet denotes nationality and I'll remove it. Also edits should be discussed in the talk page so everyone agrees with them and then modified. That is the approach that works in articles like Safavid and here as discussed in prior. --alidoostzadeh 13:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)